You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

PhilGoetz comments on Schroedinger's cat is always dead - Less Wrong Discussion

-14 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 August 2011 05:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 21 September 2011 08:23:17PM 1 point [-]

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction is not a physical entity. It has the same sort of ontological status as a probability distribution. It is not itself a probability distribution, but it is the mathematical object from which probability distributions are derived. And it also has this in common with probability distributions, that when new information about the world is obtained, you have to update it.

It sounds like you're saying the wavefunction represents our uncertainty. My impression is that you know more about grand theories of physics than I do; but I'm confident that the wavefunction does not represent mere uncertainty. Entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the uncertainty principle, etc., can't be explained by uncertainty.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 September 2011 08:52:25PM 4 points [-]

You can tell there is really something wrong with the naming conventions when the Uncertainty Principle can't be explained by uncertainty.